Heaney Morris 1

Determining Which Shin Guard Designs Reduce the Most Force

Kelcey Heaney and Gracie Morris

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Physics/IDS

11C

Mr. McMillan/Mrs. Cybulski

25 May 2016
 Heaney Morris 2

Determining Which Shin Guard Designs Reduce the Most Force

With the various designs and styles that exist, soccer players often search for

comfort and support in their shin guards, but fail to know which design performs best.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine which type of shin guards reduces the

most force at point of impact by altering the angle of a kick by a swinging pendulum and

recording the acceleration at this impact. The four types of shin guards included low-

density foam with thin plastic, high-density foam, medium-density foam with thin plastic,

and medium-density foam with hard plastic. The pendulum weight was released at 30,

45, and 60 angles.

To accomplish this, the swinging pendulum simulated a kick impacting the shin

covered by a shin guard. An accelerometer was used to determine the acceleration of each

kick. This design depicted a realistic kick in a soccer game. The shin guard that reduced

the most force was proven by the smallest acceleration, indicating the type of shin guard

that provides the most protection.

After conducting an ANOVA statistical test and two-sample t tests with the 360

trials, results revealed the high-density foam shin guard performed the best overall. There

was a significant difference between shin guards 1 and 2, 1 and 3, 1 and 4, and 3 and 4 at

the 30 angle. The high-density foam shin guard reduced the most force at the 45 and

60 angle while the low-density foam with thin plastic shin guard reduced the most force

at the 30 angle. This supports plastics ability to reduce force at minor impacts. By

determining which shin guard design reduces the most force, soccer players can purchase

the best quality uniform to keep themselves safe.

 Heaney Morris 3

Table of Contents

Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

Review of Literature............................................................................................................4

Problem Statement.............................................................................................................12

Experimental Design .........................................................................................................13

Data and Observations ......................................................................................................16

Data Analysis and Interpretation .......................................................................................22

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................34

Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................42

Appendix A: Construction and Setup............................................................................... 43

Appendix B: ANOVA Sample Calculations .....................................................................46

Appendix C: Two-sample t Test Calculations ...................................................................47

Appendix D: Sample Randomization............................................................................... 48

Works Cited .......................................................................................................................49

 Heaney Morris 4

Introduction

Did you know soccer accounts for 80% of all sports related tibial-shaft-

fractures? The tibia is the primary weight-bearing bone in the leg, (Radigan) a

crucial bone to keep healthy. Soccer players often experience collisions in this

area of the leg which is why shin guards were invented.

Shin guards provide protection for the shin. They do so by spreading the

impact loads over wider areas of the leg. The force of the initial impact is reduced

as the peak pressure decreases. The properties of the materials display energy

absorbing characteristics, which further protect the players leg, primarily the

tibia, from injury (History of Soccer Boots). Some methods to measure

protection include impulse and force. Impulse is the relationship between force

and time in which force is directly related to impulse. Therefore, if force increases

and impulse remains the same, the time has decreased. The measurement of

these factors varies in all different types of shin guards.

Soccer players have been wearing shin guards since the 1800s. Although

they became less popular in the 1950s when soccer was less rough and more

cultivated, FIFA eventually required each soccer player to wear shin guards as a

part of the uniform in 1990. In addition to being mandatory equipment, the shin

guards must be made out of rubber, plastic, or another material that protects the

player (Arbuckle). Rubber, plastic, and foam are three different materials that
 Heaney Morris 5

enhance the durability of shin guards and provide comfort, support, and

protection for players. There are also several different densities of foam along

with different thicknesses of plastic.

With the various designs and styles that exist, purchasing shin guards can

be difficult. Many athletes may purchase shin guards based on appearance or

brand, but they forget the most crucial element, protection. The media plays a

large role in the advertising of major athletic sports brands such as nike or adidas

which influences the consumption of these brand sports equipment. Parents

often wonder why their child complains of aches and pains after each game, but

they fail to consider the material or durability of their childs uniform. The multiple

articles on tibia fractures related to sports injuries paired with limited research on

the protection of shin guards makes purchasing shin guards as a player even

more perplexing. This experiment was conducted to help make that crucial

decision easier.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine what type of shin guards

provides the most protection for soccer players by altering the angle of a kick

from a swinging pendulum and recording the acceleration at the force of impact.

To accomplish this, the swinging pendulum simulated the kick as it impacted the

shin that was covered by a shin guard. The four types of shin guards tested

were low-density foam with thin plastic, high-density foam, medium-density foam

with thin plastic, and medium-density foam with hard plastic. The pendulum

weight was released at 30, 45, and 60 angles. An accelerometer was used to
 Heaney Morris 6

determine the acceleration of each kick. The most protective shin guard, the one

that reduced the most force, was identified by the lowest absolute value

acceleration at the point of impact. This experiment design depicted a realistic

kick to a player in a soccer game, putting each shin guard to the test. This led to

useful results that could be applied to the game. The shin guard that reduced the

most force was proven by the smallest acceleration, indicating the type of shin

guard provides the most protection for soccer players.

The results of this experiment can be applied to the lives of soccer

players. By determining which shin guard design provides the most protection,

soccer players will be able to purchase the best quality uniform to keep

themselves safe. This reduces players injuries and increases performance on

the field by knowing that he or she will remain safe and healthy. These results

may encourage businesses to decrease production of unsafe shin guards and

increase the production of protective shin guards. This would increase revenue

as well as satisfied customers, creating a happier world all around. This

experiment evidently covers a crucial aspect of injuries in sports with the

potential to limit hospital visits and increase soccer goals.

 Heaney Morris 7

Review of Literature

The purpose of this experiment was to determine what type of shin guards

provides the most protection for soccer players by altering the angle of a kick

from a swinging pendulum and measuring the acceleration at the point of impact.

By determining the different accelerations upon each point of impact, the most

protective shin guard was distinguished. The shin guard that reduced the most

force was proven by the smallest acceleration, which indicated the type of shin

guard that provides the most protection for soccer players.

To provide the most protection for athletes shins, the shin guard was

invented. The shin guard, an imperative part of uniform for athletes in several

sports, serves as a shock absorber to spread the load across a larger area.

Important factors of the shin guard protection include distribution of impact along

the length of the shin guards, compliance, and physical design characteristics.

Shin guards can be made out of several different materials to help deflect the

energy back to the striking force. Some materials include fiberglass, foam, and

plastic. Designs often include an inner shell made of foam with a plastic outer
 Heaney Morris 8

shell. The foam can range between low density foam and high density foam,

providing protection from impacts to the shin. The structural (outer) shell of the

shin guard is the main source of protection for the shin, therefore a harder shell

may provide the most protection, but it does not necessarily reduce the most

force.

Compliance, defined as the reciprocal of stiffness, or reciprocal of

resistance to deformation, also serves as an important factor in protection.

Compliance is determined by the properties of the padding material of the guard.

For example, foam, a compliant material, increases the contact times of impact,

therefore reducing the peak impact force. The strong correlation between

thickness and impact absorption supports the importance of compliance. Some

shin guards reduce force better when introduced to a greater force. Certain shin

guards are constructed to prevent injuries of a greater force and do not absorb as

much energy when applied to small forces. The small forces do not impact the

shin guard at a hard enough force and are deflected off without an effect of

absorption. Lastly, increased thickness of a shin guard may be more important

than the actual length of the shin guard. Length does influence the area of the

shin that is overall protected, but thickness correlates with the absorption of

impact (Francisco et al).

 Heaney Morris 9

http://physicsnet.co.uk/a-level-physics-as-a2/further-mechanics/momentum-concepts/

Figure 1. Impulse Graph

Figure 1 above displays a force-time graph in which the area is important.

This graph represents impulse, another factor of shin guard protection. The area

under a force-time graph is force multiplied by time, which is a quantity called

impulse. Impulse is equal to the change in momentum of an object. If mass is

held constant, the greater amount of time would require a smaller force. Along

with this, F=m*a indicating that force decreases as acceleration decreases when

mass is held constant.

Before determining the best shin guard to protect soccer players,

acceleration must first be recorded. Acceleration is the measurement of the

change of velocity divided by time. Using Isaac Newtons second law which

states that force equals mass times acceleration (F = m*a), the peak force at

each point of impact can be determined. The acceleration of an object depends

directly on the net force of the object and inversely on the mass of the object
 Heaney Morris 10

(Newton's Second Law). Therefore, as the net force of the object increases, the

acceleration increases, and as the mass increases, the acceleration would

decrease. Mass and acceleration are directly related to force. As the mass or

acceleration increases, the force increases. The mass of the pendulum weight

remained constant in this experiment. Therefore, the shin guards that

experienced the lower acceleration at the point of impact experienced the least

force. Because of the least acceleration, the shin guard reduced the most force.

Previously, CA Bir, SJ Cassatta, and DH Janda of the Institute for

Preventative Sports Medicine in Ann Arbor, Michigan tested the effectiveness of

shin guards. In their experiment, a pendulum impact apparatus was used to

simulate the impact on an individual being kicked by another player which was

represented by a Hybrid III dummy. The apparatus impacted the tibial region of

the test dummy while the peak load was recorded. By using shin guards, the load

forces were decreased by 41.2-77.1%. After experimenting, the use of shin

guards was determined effective in reducing the impact force transferred to the

shin area which reduces injury (Bir et al).

The experiment of the predecessors differs from the physics experiment

that was conducted because they used a dummy to simulate a shin, but a piece

of wood and cardboard cylinder represented the shin in this research case. Also,

those from the Institute for Preventative Sports Medicine measured effectiveness

by impulse which, involving force and time, instead of acceleration. The

experiment described is applicable because it tests the same concept of reducing

 Heaney Morris 11

force and helped shape an experiment. However, it used a different method

involving a test dummy as well as different calculations. In both cases, several

shin guards were analyzed to reach a conclusion. Due to load force being

measured, the results of this experiment were not able to compare to the

acceleration measured in the current experiment.

Yet in another experiment, professors at Marmara University including

Yasar Tatar, Nusret Ramazanoglu, Asiye Filiz Camliguney, Evrim Karadag Saygi,

and Hasan Birol Cotuk researched which type of shin guard protects the tibia

best thus reducing the risk of injury. The effectiveness of specific shin guards was

tested on a prosthetic foot with an artificial tibia. Two custom made carbon fiber

shin guards as well as three brand name shin guards by Adidas and Nike were

tested. A pendulum was attached to two load cells and a prosthetic foot with a

cleat that simulated a soccer players foot. Condensed foam was used to create

the artificial tibia and then reinforced by carbon fibers and clothing. A

multifunctional sensor system recorded the impact on the tibia. Only 2.79-9.63 %

of the load was transferred to the sensors in the low impact trials. In the high

impact trials, 5.16-10.90% of the load was transferred to the sensors. Because

polypropylene shin guards are made out of plastic, they bend more easily. Plastic

shin guards reduce less force, allowing the impact time to be larger, known as

impulse. Carbon fiber shin guards absorb impact better to reduce a greater

force, decreasing the contact time and limiting the damage. This also supports

the hypothesis that the high-density foam would decrease the most force

because it increases the contact time the greatest. It was determined that carbon
 Heaney Morris 12

fiber shin guards decrease the risk of injury to the tibia more than commercial

polypropylene shin guards (Tatar et al Web).

However, the experiment by the professors at Marmara University differs

from the physics experiment that was conducted. The professors tested the shin

guards on a prosthetic foot. In the current physics experiment, the shin guards

were attached to a man-made wooden block that was covered by a thick

cardboard cylinder. Also, the previous experiment had custom-made shin guards

as well as store-bought ones, but this experiment only included varying store-

bought shin guards. They used a multifunctional sensor system to record the

data but an accelerometer recorded the data in the physics experiment. The

experiment described above supports that carbon fiber provides the most

protection, but carbon was not available at the time. This also support the lack of

protection from polypropylene shin guards. Again, because the results of this

experiment were measured by load forces, the results were not able to compare

to the acceleration measured in the current experiment.

 Heaney Morris 13

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3918547/

Figure 2. Experimental Set-up

Figure 2 above displays the experimental set-up that the professors at

Marmara University used to determine which shin guard provided the most

protection to soccer players. The prosthetic leg simulated a shin while the cleat

provided realistic results.

Finally, in another experiment, professors at Duke University and the

University of North Carolina tested the usefulness of shin guards in protecting

soccer players tibia. These researchers include Anthony C. Francisco, Roger W.

Nightingale, Farshid Guilak, Richard R. Glisson, and William E. Garrett. They

also determined a relationship between the material and structural differences in

designs and protection of shin guards. In the previous experiment, a leg was

simulated using a synthetic tibia which was calibrated against human cadaver

specimens. The shin guards reduced force by an average of 11% to 17%

compared with an unguarded leg (Francisco et al).

 Heaney Morris 14

The experiment of the professors at Duke University and University of

North Carolina differs from the physics experiment that was conducted because

the shin guards were classified by plastic, fiberglass, compressed air, and Kevlar.

In this physics experiment, the shin guards were classified as low-density foam

with thin plastic outer shell, high-density foam with thin plastic outer shell,

medium-density foam with hard plastic outer shell, and high-density foam without

outer shell. Also, the previous experiment used a drop-height method to

determine impact forces, but this physics experiment used a swinging pendulum.

The experiment described is applicable because it tests the same concept in

order to reduce force while using a different method that involves dropping

weight at different heights instead of swinging.

The shin guard with the high density foam had both compliance and

thickness, which are two positive factors in reducing peak impact forces. The

other shin guards provided support for the player against mild impacts, but the

high density foam has the best overall reduction of force during the higher angle

trials. The trials of the high density foam occurred over a longer time frame. The

changes in velocity paired with the pendulum weight and time, all played a

significant role in determining the force. These three factors determine the

impulse. The higher the length of time of the impact, the lower the force was

when mass and velocity are held constant. After analyzing previous experiments

conducted by experts in the field, useful information contributed to the current

physics experiment. The processes and science applied helped to determine a

unique way to test the durability of soccer shin guards. The predecessors
 Heaney Morris 15

revealed the thicker foam decreases impact time, thus reducing more force and

allowing less damage to the shin, as predicted in the hypothesis.

 Heaney Morris 16

Problem Statement

Problem:

To determine what type of shin guards provides the most protection for

soccer players by altering the angle of a kick from a swinging pendulum and

recording the acceleration at the force of impact.

Hypothesis:

The high-density foam shin guard will reduce the force of impact by the

greatest amount to provide the most protection to a soccer player.

Data Measured:

In this experiment, the independent variables consist of the different types

of shin guards (low-density foam with thin plastic, medium-density foam with thin

plastic, medium-density foam with hard plastic, and high-density foam) and the

angle from which the pendulum was released (30, 60, and 90). The dependent

variable consists of the acceleration of the pendulum when in contact with the
 Heaney Morris 17

shin guard. An accelerometer attached to the pendulum determined the

acceleration in m/s2 which was used to solve for the force of the impact in

Newtons (N). Thirty trials of each combination of material and angle were

conducted and averaged to produce a final set of data. An ANOVA statistical test

along with a two-sample t test was used to analyze the relationship between the

material of shin guards and its ability to reduce the force of impact.

Experimental Design

Materials:

Pendulum Vernier accelerometer

Wooden structure Vernier LabQuest
Lab stand rods LoggerPro
Pendulum weight Clinometer smartphone application
Metal bars Wooden tubing to simulate shins
(3) Zip-ties Low-density foam with thin plastic shin guard (Franklin)
(2) C clamps High-density foam shin guard (Score)
(2) Dual clamps Medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard (Score)
Laptop Medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard (Nike)

Procedures:

Setup:

1. Attach the weight to the center (18 inches from the vertical rod) of the

horizontal metal bar of the pendulum.

2. Tape the Vernier accelerometer to the top of the weight, pressing firmly to

ensure security.
3. Plug the Vernier accelerometer cord into the LabQuest.
4. Attach the LabQuest cord to the laptop.

Testing:

5. Randomize trials for each shin guard type and angle in calculator.

6. Place the appropriate shin guard attached to the simulated shin onto the
 Heaney Morris 18

wooden base.

7. Zero-out the Vernier accelerometer.

8. Pull the weight attached to the metal bar backward to the desired measured

angle.

9. Click COLLECT to start data collection and then release the weight. Be sure

to apprehend the weight after its initial contact with the shin guard.

10. Highlight the area of the graph with the peak maximum absolute value

acceleration on the LoggerPro

software and click analyze and statistics.

11. Record the acceleration of the lowest peak displayed on the LoggerPro into a

spreadsheet under the correct combination.

12. Repeat steps 5 through 11 for each combination trial.

Diagram:
 Heaney Morris 19

Figure 3. Materials

Figure 3 above displays the materials used in the experimental setup.

Each shin guard was secured to a thick cardboard tube to simulate a shin. In the

figure above, shin guard 1 was placed onto the wooden structure and ready for

impact. The wooden structure was attached to the lab table with C clamps to

secure it in one spot. Three lab stand rods, two vertical and one horizontal, were

used to construct the pendulum. Dual clamps were used to attach the horizontal

rod to the two vertical rods to form the pendulum. The pendulum weight was

aligned at the center of the shin guard, which was also at the center of the

horizontal metal bar. Three zip-ties were placed on the horizontal rod. These

were aligned to 30, 45, and 60 using the Clinometer smartphone application. A

Vernier accelerometer, plugged into the LabQuest, was attached to the top of the
 Heaney Morris 20

pendulum. The LabQuest was plugged into the laptop to measure and record

data on the LoggerPro computer system. See Appendix A for assembly of

wooden structure and metal bars.

Data and Observations

Data:

Table 1
Acceleration of Shin Guard at Point of Impact
Medium- Medium-
Low-Density
Material of High-Density Density Foam Density Foam
foam with Thin
Shin Guard Foam with Thin with Hard
Plastic
Plastic Plastic
Angle of Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration
Trial
Release (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2)
1 30 -4.26 -26.56 -19.80 -21.19
2 30 -4.44 -13.33 -16.30 -17.47
3 30 -4.80 -24.61 -10.78 -23.03
 Heaney Morris 21

4 30 -9.79 -21.00 -11.37 -12.01

5 30 -10.87 -5.51 -10.78 -15.79
6 30 -3.60 -17.09 -12.13 -9.78
7 30 -3.78 -16.94 -7.98 -7.97
8 30 -12.64 -15.14 -16.33 -15.63
9 30 -5.45 -14.38 -14.38 -14.73
10 30 -2.38 -16.64 -16.18 -12.34
11 30 -22.41 -30.20 -10.04 -12.36
12 30 -13.54 -25.96 -26.28 -28.09
13 30 -20.46 -13.93 -13.65 -28.54
14 30 -12.93 -33.34 -11.09 -29.90
15 30 -15.97 -20.41 -23.13 -17.11
16 30 -12.85 -20.70 -29.90 -24.93
17 30 -17.17 -51.48 -12.30 -16.35
18 30 -12.65 -16.64 -13.05 -14.85
19 30 -13.86 -12.58 -11.39 -30.94
20 30 -10.26 -17.56 -40.12 -39.22
21 30 -14.68 -10.49 -14.25 -39.22
22 30 -18.30 -18.01 -13.34 -19.97
23 30 -13.63 -13.95 -10.64 -36.81
24 30 -15.89 -18.91 -14.85 -23.27
25 30 -10.93 -7.63 -25.54 -21.47
26 30 -11.98 -7.79 -26.43 -12.90
27 30 -17.09 -23.57 -6.73 -36.36
28 30 -5.96 -15.31 -10.79 -17.71
29 30 -2.96 -8.83 -11.84 -38.16
30 30 -7.76 -25.09 -26.89 -33.54
Medium- Medium-
Low-Density
Material of High-Density Density Foam Density Foam
foam with Thin
Shin Guard Foam with Thin with Hard
Plastic
Plastic Plastic
Angle of Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration
Trial
Release (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2)
Average
Acceleration -11.11 -18.79 -16.27 -22.39
at 30
31 45 -60.50 -28.52 -65.89 -47.17
32 45 -27.80 -32.89 -71.45 -87.94
33 45 -29.00 -29.27 -69.60 -63.72
34 45 -52.29 -50.21 -67.85 -59.96
35 45 -70.49 -51.71 -66.92 -66.42
36 45 -47.63 -51.53 -71.15 -40.26
 Heaney Morris 22

37 45 -38.45 -33.87 -76.53 -60.64

38 45 -29.27 -33.48 -49.47 -30.18
39 45 -28.22 -32.28 -48.86 -25.37
40 45 -34.99 -32.13 -43.01 -31.23
41 45 -52.74 -57.57 -49.58 -44.47
42 45 -30.33 -48.69 -23.19 -33.99
43 45 -31.38 -26.89 -18.45 -36.40
44 45 -63.12 -28.23 -52.59 -31.61
45 45 -44.62 -42.53 -36.04 -53.68
46 45 -40.41 -77.73 -28.82 -30.50
47 45 -42.97 -42.38 -51.23 -38.62
48 45 -45.22 -28.69 -35.60 -20.58
49 45 -45.07 -26.43 -23.11 -49.01
50 45 -40.26 -47.49 -30.18 -25.96
51 45 -39.50 -36.34 -39.05 -36.79
52 45 -70.31 -35.77 -18.3 -59.21
53 45 -33.63 -33.19 -45.07 -16.18
54 45 -30.92 -34.90 -50.91 -82.37
55 45 -20.55 -41.56 -53.04 -46.87
56 45 -52.14 -40.91 -24.61 -31.98
57 45 -67.31 -25.46 -27.17 -34.39
58 45 -53.49 -21.47 -16.79 -18.74
59 45 -24.91 -46.59 -60.30 -86.58
60 45 -50.49 -39.07 -31.68 -22.51
Average
Acceleration -43.27 -38.60 -44.89 -43.78
at 45
Medium- Medium-
Low-Density
Material of High-Density Density Foam Density Foam
foam with Thin
Shin Guard Foam with Thin with Hard
Plastic
Plastic Plastic
Angle of Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration Acceleration
Trial
Release (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2)
61 60 -100.30 -44.62 -34.24 -32.78
63 60 -99.97 -49.43 -72.75 -59.29
64 60 -40.71 -53.19 -69.13 -48.19
65 60 -48.67 -61.46 -58.01 -38.76
66 60 -62.37 -41.91 -100.10 -75.99
67 60 -121.00 -96.51 -83.42 -111.80
68 60 -86.43 -36.34 -81.16 -37.78
69 60 -95.75 -46.87 -64.02 -64.75
70 60 -67.93 -23.86 -59.05 -98.97
71 60 -50.80 -103.00 -60.56 -21.45
 Heaney Morris 23

72 60 -118.00 -48.08 -134.30 -55.45

73 60 -45.00 -67.93 -44.16 -45.22
74 60 -108.90 -26.11 -25.56 -68.23
75 60 -51.10 -83.12 -30.33 -94.10
76 60 -73.21 -31.53 -55.00 -32.58
77 60 -42.83 -81.60 -50.03 -41.61
78 60 -50.35 -51.08 -98.00 -41.46
79 60 -23.87 -59.81 -48.08 -56.80
80 60 -39.22 -57.25 -65.59 -52.29
81 60 -45.24 -49.18 -51.38 -91.24
82 60 -34.86 -67.93 -72.61 -33.19
83 60 -35.76 -26.11 -68.89 -100.30
84 60 -53.66 -63.12 -32.75 -82.52
85 60 -94.27 -51.63 -119.70 -89.59
86 60 -61.48 -80.60 -75.62 -120.70
87 60 -32.00 -51.08 -44.79 -46.27
88 60 -28.84 -69.81 -29.14 -65.82
89 60 -41.93 -57.25 -41.63 -100.40
90 60 -109.00 -65.30 -34.56 -51.84
Average
Acceleration -64.64 -55.86 -61.92 -64.52
at 60

Table 1 above displays the recorded acceleration of the different types of

shin guards at each release angle, 30, 45, and 60.

Table 2
Average Acceleration of Shin Guard at Point of Impact
Average Medium- Medium-
Low-Density
Acceleration High-Density Density Foam Density Foam
foam with Thin
(m/s2) Foam with Thin with Hard
Plastic
at Plastic Plastic
30 -11.11 -18.79 -16.27 -22.39
45 -43.27 -38.59 -44.88 -43.78
60 -64.64 -55.86 -61.92 -64.52
Overall
-39.67 -37.75 -41.02 -43.56
Average

Table 2 above displays the average acceleration of the different types of

shin guards at each release angle, 30, 45, and 60. It also displays the shin

guards overall average acceleration at each release angle. The lowest

 Heaney Morris 24

acceleration for 30 was the low-density foam with thin plastic shin guard. The

lowest acceleration for 45 was the high-density foam shin guard. The lowest

acceleration for 60 was the high-density foam with thin plastic shin guard. The

negative sign can be disregarded because it indicated the direction of the

accelerometer; therefore, the absolute value of -11.11 m/s2 is the smallest

acceleration.

Table 3
Standard Deviation of Shin Guards Acceleration at Point of Impact
Standard
Medium- Medium-
Deviation of Low-Density
High-Density Density Foam Density Foam
Acceleratio foam with Thin
Foam with Thin with Hard
n Plastic
Plastic Plastic
at
30 5.44 9.09 7.66 9.54
45 13.86 11.77 18.27 19.73
60 29.17 20.02 26.32 26.74

Table 3 above displays the standard deviation of the recorded acceleration

of the different shin guards impact with the pendulum weight that was released

from each angle. Notice, the standard deviation increased as the angle of release

increased.

Observations:

Table 4
Observations
Trial Observation
Shin Guard 3: The pendulum hit a higher part of the shin guard that
21 wasnt previously hit, the acceleration was higher than most of the
data.
Shin Guard 3: The shin guard made a very light noise and seemed
27 to hit the shin guard with little force. This trial had one of the smaller
accelerations but was a direct hit against the shin guard.
Shin Guard 2: The pendulum weight struck the shin guard directly
45
(parallel) and smooth.
 Heaney Morris 25

Shin Guard 1: A louder noise was projected with more vibrations.

52
The pendulum swung very smooth.
Shin Guard 2: The shin guard was moved slightly down because an
67 ident was engraving into the shin guard, therefore the acceleration
increased and came back down in the next trial.
Shin Guard 3: The shin guard was pushed to the right on the point of
74 impact, the pendulum rubbed against the metal bar, It did not swing
as smooth as most of the trials.
Shin Guard 4: The pendulum weight was not exactly parallel
76 therefore the shin guard was hit on a small angle which decreased
the speed.
The pendulum weight hit the shin guard on a slight angle which
82
reduce the speed and gave a smaller deflection off of the guard.
Shin Guard 4: The sound of the impact was very loud, and the
89
pendulum deflected further.

Table 4 above displays observations from trials. The angle at which the

pendulum was pulled back wasnt 100% accurate because we were unable to

come up with a perfect system. Also, the pendulum would not always strike the

shin guard at a direct, smooth impact, sometimes it would sway depending on

the angle the pendulum weight was dropped at. Most of the data was clear, but

occasionally a very high or low acceleration would appear on the LoggerPro and

the data was still recorded, but it was usually an outlier.

Diagram:
 Heaney Morris 26

Figure 4. Pendulum Pulled Back Figure 5. Pendulum after Impact

Figure 4 shows the direction of the acceleration after the pendulum was

pulled back and released. Based on the placement of the accelerometer, the

pendulum weight was traveling in the negative direction and the direction of the

acceleration switched after the point of impact with the shin guard. Figure 5

displays the pendulum weight traveling in the positive direction therefore

producing an acceleration approaching positive.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

 Heaney Morris 27

The angle of a kick from a swinging pendulum was altered and the

acceleration in m/s2 at the point of impact between the pendulum weight and the

shin guard was recorded. An accelerometer was used to measure the

acceleration of the kick which was then recorded in a table. This was a

comparative experiment because the acceleration was compared between each

type of shin guard at different release angles. The four types of shin guards

included low-density foam with thin plastic, high-density foam, medium-density

foam with thin plastic, and medium-density foam with hard plastic. The pendulum

weight was released at 30, 45, and 60. Although there was no specific

control to reduce confounding, the acceleration was still compared between

each combination. Before conducting the experiment, a calculator was used to

randomize trials. The feature randInt(,) was used to set trial orders (see

Appendix D for calculations). The four different shin guards, Low-Density foam

with Thin Plastic, High-Density Foam, Medium-Density Foam with Thin Plastic,

and Medium-Density Foam with Hard Plastic, were labeled as 1, 2, 3, and 4,

respectively. The 30 angle was deemed 1, the 45 angle was 2, and the 60

angle 3. Each shin guard and each angle were equally likely to get picked. This

helped to produce similar groups while reducing bias. Due to the large amount of

trials, 10 trials were conducted using the random combination before continuing

to the next combination. To validate and replicate the experiment, 30 trials were

conducted for each combination of shin guard and angle. This yielded a total of

360 trials. A large number of independently repeated trials is necessary to reduce

variability and reveal the regular pattern of random results. This large number of
 Heaney Morris 28

repeated trials is also necessary to identify other results that may be outside the

regular pattern. The function of repeated experiments is to eliminate the influence

of experimental errors on the results, and reveal the experimental effects under

specific experimental conditions.

Figure 6. Acceleration at Point of Impact from 30 Release

Figure 6 above shows the box plots of the acceleration at each point of

impact between the weight and the shin guard when the weight was released

from a 30 angle. The high-density foam shin guard population has an outlier at

-51.48 and the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard population has

an outlier at -40.12. Shin guard 1 had the smallest range of 20.03 and also had

the smallest median as well as smallest mean acceleration. Shin guards 2 and 3

both contained one outlier and had similar ranges. Shin guard 4 had the largest
 Heaney Morris 29

range of 31.25. Shin guard 4 also had the highest median as well as highest

mean acceleration overall. The box plots of shin guards 2 through 3 are all

slightly skewed to the left while shin guard 1 and 4 are skewed to the right. Shin

guards 2, 3, and 4 overlap. However, the means and medians vary. Therefore,

there appears to be a significant difference between a few combinations of shin

guards; therefore, a two sample t test can be conducted.

Figure 7. Acceleration at Point of Impact from 45 Release

Figure 7 above shows the box plots of the acceleration at each point of

impact between the weight and the shin guard when the weight was released

from a 45 angle. The high-density foam shin guard population has an outlier at

-77.73. Shin guard 4 had the largest range of 71.46 thus showing a big variability

in the accelerations. Shin guard 4 was slightly skewed to the left while the other

shin guards seemed to be fairly symmetric. Shin guard 2 had the smallest range
 Heaney Morris 30

of 36.28 and contained one outlier of -77.73. Shin guard 2 had the smallest

overall mean. The box plot of shin guard 2 seems to be the most different, but

without the outlier. There is overlap between these distributions and the means

and medians do not vary as much as the 30 distributions. There is not a

significant difference; therefore, a two sample t test does not need to be

conducted.

Figure 8. Acceleration at Point of Impact from 60 Release

Figure 8 above shows the box plots of the acceleration at each point of

impact between the weight and the shin guard when the weight was released

from a 60 angle. The high-density foam shin guard population has an outlier at

-103.00 and the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard population has

two outliers at -134.30 and -119.70. Shin guards 1 and 4 had the largest ranges

around almost 100 showing that there was a wide variety of acceleration for
 Heaney Morris 31

these shin guards. Shin guard 2 had the smallest range, but very close to shin

guard 3. Shin guard 2 contained one outlier, while shin guard 3 contained 2

outliers. There is overlap between these distributions and the means do not vary

as much as the 30 distributions. The medians of each box plot are all within 6

data points and there does not seem to be a significant difference; therefore, a

two sample t test does not need to be conducted.

An ANOVA statistical test was used to compare the means of the four

populations (see Appendix B for sample calculations).

Ho: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4

Ha: not all 1, 2, 3, & 4 are equal

Assumptions:

1. There are four independent simple random samples, one from each of the

four populations, Low-Density foam with Thin Plastic (1), High-Density Foam

(2), Medium-Density Foam with Thin Plastic (3), and Medium-Density Foam

with Hard Plastic (4).

2. The Central Limit Theorem states that a sampling distribution for a sample

with a sufficiently large sample size will be normal, regardless of skewness.

The sampling distribution approaches normality when n is greater than or

equal to 30. In this case, n is 30 which implies normality. Twelve different

combinations of 30 trials each were conducted, following the Central Limit

Theorem. We did have outliers as well as skewness in a few graphs.

For 30, the High-Density Foam population has an outlier at -51.48 and the

Medium-Density Foam with Thin Plastic population has an outlier at -40.12.

For 45, the High-Density Foam population has an outlier at -77.73. For 60,
 Heaney Morris 32

the High-Density Foam population has an outlier at -103.00 and the Medium-

Density Foam with Thin Plastic population has two outliers at -134.30 and

-119.70.
3. All samples have the same size at 30 trials (Central Limit Theorem) and the

sample standard deviations are similar. For each set of trials (30, 45, 60)

the sample deviations are all within a small range.

30: 5.44, 9.09, 7.67, 9.54

45: 13.86, 11.77, 18.27, 19.72

60: 29.17, 20.02, 26.32, 26.73

The data also follows the rule of thumb that each populations largest sample

standard deviation is no more than twice as large as the smallest standard

deviation.

30: 9.54 < 2(5.44)

45: 19.72 < 2(13.86)

60: 29.17 < 2(20.02)

Table 5
ANOVA results
Angle of Release 30 45 60
F 10.25 0.88 0.76
Degrees of
3/116 3/116 3/116
Freedom
MSE 65.73 263.33 664.72
-6
P-Value 4.87x10 0.46 0.52

Table 5 above displays the ANOVA test results. The p-value of the first test

for acceleration from 30 was almost 0. The p-value of the second test for

acceleration from 45 was 0.4553. The p-value of the third test for acceleration

from 60 was 0.5164.

 Heaney Morris 33

Reject Ho in the first test at 30 because the p-value of 0 is less than the

alpha level of 0.05. There is evidence that the mean acceleration at the point of

impact between the pendulum weight and the low-density foam with thin plastic

shin guard, high-density foam shin guard, medium-density foam with thin plastic

shin guard, and medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard is not equal.

There is almost no chance of getting mean accelerations this extreme by chance

alone if Ho is true.

Fail to reject Ho in the second test at 45 because the p-value of 0.4553 is

greater than the alpha level of 0.05. There is no evidence that the mean

acceleration at the point of impact between the pendulum weight and the low-

density foam with thin plastic shin guard, high-density foam shin guard, medium-

density foam with thin plastic shin guard, and medium-density foam with hard

plastic shin guard is not equal. There is a 45.53% chance of getting mean

accelerations this extreme by chance alone if Ho is true.

Fail to reject Ho in the third test at 60 because the p-value of 0. 5164 is

greater than the alpha level of 0.05. There is no evidence that the mean

acceleration at the point of impact between the pendulum weight and the low-

density foam with thin plastic shin guard, high-density foam shin guard, medium-

density foam with thin plastic shin guard, and medium-density foam with hard

plastic shin guard is not equal. There is a 51.64% chance of getting mean

accelerations this extreme by chance alone if Ho is true.

 Heaney Morris 34

Two-Sample t tests were used to compare the samples from two different

populations at 30 because there is significant data at this release angle as

revealed by the ANOVA test (see Appendix C for sample calculations).

Ho: 1 = 2

Ha: 1 2

Assumptions:

1. There are four distinct populations, Low-Density foam with Thin Plastic, High-

Density Foam, Medium-Density Foam with Thin Plastic, and Medium-Density

Foam with Hard Plastic. Two distinct populations were compared at one time.
2. There are four independent simple random samples, one from each of the

four independent populations, Low-Density foam with Thin Plastic, High-

Density Foam, Medium-Density Foam with Thin Plastic, and Medium-Density

Foam with Hard Plastic.

3. The High-Density Foam population has an outlier at -51.48 and the Medium-

Density Foam with Thin Plastic population has an outlier at -40.12. The high-

density foam shin guard population has an outlier at -51.48 and the medium-

density foam with thin plastic shin guard population has an outlier at -40.12.

All populations have n 30; the sampling distribution approaches normality at

this number due to the Central Limit Theorem; therefore, the two sample t test

can be carried out.

Table 6
Two-Sample t-Test at 30
Shin
1,2 1,3 1,4 2,3 2,4 3,4
Guards
t 3.95 3.00 5.60 -1.16 1.50 2.74
 Heaney Morris 35

P-Value 2.55x10-4 4.17x10-3 1.10x10-6 0.25 0.14 8.31x10-3

Table 6 above displays the results of the Two-Sample t-Test at 30. Reject

Ho in the first test between low-density foam with thin plastic shin guard (1) and

high-density foam shin guard (2) because the p-value of 0.000255 is less than

the alpha level of 0.05. There is evidence that the mean acceleration at the point

of impact between the pendulum weight and the low-density foam with thin

plastic shin guard and the high-density foam shin guard is not equal. There is a

0.0255% chance of getting mean accelerations this extreme by chance alone if

Ho is true.

Reject Ho in the second test between low-density foam with thin plastic

shin guard (1) and the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard (3)

because the p-value of 0.004170 is less than the alpha level of 0.05. There is

evidence that the mean acceleration at the point of impact between the

pendulum weight and the low-density foam with thin plastic shin guard and the

medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard is not equal. There is a 0.417%

chance of getting mean accelerations this extreme by chance alone if H o is true.

Reject Ho in the third test between the low-density foam with thin plastic

shin guard (1) and the medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard (4)

because the p-value of 1.1027x10-6 is less than the alpha level of 0.05. There is

evidence that the mean acceleration at the point of impact between the

pendulum weight and the low-density foam with thin plastic shin guard and the

medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard is not equal. There is almost
 Heaney Morris 36

no chance of getting mean accelerations this extreme by chance alone if H o is

true.

Fail to reject Ho in the fourth and fifth tests between high-density foam shin

guard (2), the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard (3), and the

medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard (4) because the p-values of

0.2519 and 0.1399 are greater than the alpha level of 0.05. There is no evidence

that the mean acceleration between the pendulum weight and these shin guards

are not equal. There is a 25.19% chance of getting mean accelerations this

extreme by chance alone if Ho is true in the fourth test and 13.99% chance of

getting mean accelerations this extreme by chance alone if H o is true in the fifth

test.

Reject Ho in the sixth test the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin

guard (3) and the medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard (4) because

the p-value of 0.008310 is less than the alpha level of 0.05. There is evidence

that the mean acceleration at the point of impact between the pendulum weight

and the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard and the medium-

density foam with hard plastic shin guard is not equal. There is a 0.831% chance

of getting mean accelerations this extreme by chance alone if H o is true.

 Heaney Morris 37

Figure 9. Two-Sample t Test Bell Curve

Figure 9 above displays an example of one of the graphs of the t values.

This particular graph represents the significance between the low-density foam

with thin plastic shin guard (1) and the high-density foam shin guard (2) for the

30 trials. Because the p-value of 0.00025 is much lower than the alpha level of

0.05, the shaded region cannot be seen.

Table 7
Significance at 30 Release Angle
Shin
Guard 1,2 1,3 1,4 2,3 2,4 3,4
s
Result Significan Significan Significan Insignifican Insignifican Significan
s t t t t t t

Table 7 displays the results of differences between the shin guard

distributions at the 30 release angle. The difference between the low-density

with thin plastic shin guard and the high-density foam shin guard was deemed

significant. The difference between the low-density with thin plastic shin guard
 Heaney Morris 38

and the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard was deemed

significant. The difference between the low-density with thin plastic shin guard

and the medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard was deemed

significant. The difference between the high-density foam shin guard and the

medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard was deemed insignificant. The

difference between the high-density foam shin guard and the medium-density

foam with hard plastic shin guard was deemed insignificant. The difference

between the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard and the medium-

density foam with hard plastic shin guard was deemed insignificant.
 Heaney Morris 39

Conclusion

The purpose of the experiment was to determine what type of shin guards

provides the most protection for soccer players by altering the angle of a kick

from a swinging pendulum and recording the acceleration at the force of impact.

The four types of shin guards tested include low-density foam with thin plastic,

high-density foam, medium-density foam with thin plastic, and medium-density

foam with hard plastic. The pendulum weight was released from 30, 45, and

60 angles. A wooden structure was designed to support the shin guard and act

as the shin. A swinging pendulum simulated a kick that impacted the shin

covered by a shin guard. An accelerometer was used to determine the

acceleration of each kick. The most protective shin guard was identified by

determining the accelerations upon each point of impact. This experiment design

depicted a realistic kick to a player in a soccer game, putting each shin guard to

the test. This led to useful results that could be applied to the game. The shin
 Heaney Morris 40

guard that reduced the most force was proven by the smallest acceleration,

indicating the type of shin guard provides the most protection for soccer players.

The hypothesis stated that the high-density foam shin guard would reduce

the force of impact by the greatest amount to provide the most protection to a

soccer player. This hypothesis was rejected at 30 because the low-density foam

with thin plastic shin guard yielded the lowest absolute value acceleration at the

point of impact. Although the hypothesis was accepted at the 45 and 60 release

angles, the high density shin guard did not perform the best at the 30. The

experiment showed that the high-density shin guard combined with the 45 and

60 angles had the lowest acceleration therefore reducing the most force.

However, the high-density foam shin guard did not decrease the acceleration by

the greatest amount at the 30 angle.

An ANOVA statistical test was conducted to compare the means of the

four populations. These four populations include the low-density foam with thin

plastic shin guards, high-density foam shin guards, medium-density foam with

thin plastic shin guards, and medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guards.

By using an ANOVA test it was found that the only significant relationship existed

among the 30 angles (see figure 6). Because there is no significance between

the shin guards at 45 and 60 angles, a two-sample t test is only necessary for

the 30 data. Four of the six combinations of the two-sample t test at 30 resulted

significant.
 Heaney Morris 41

The first two-sample t test compared the low-density foam with thin plastic

shin guard (1) to the high-density foam shin guard (2). The mean acceleration at

the point of impact with the low-density foam with thin plastic shin guard (1) and

with the high-density foam shin guard (2) is not equal because the p-value of

0.000255 is less than the alpha level of 0.05.

The second test compared the low-density foam with thin plastic shin

guard (1) to the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard (3). The mean

acceleration at the point of impact with the low-density foam with thin plastic shin

guard (1) and with the medium-density foam with thin plastic shin guard (3) is not

equal. The p-value of 0.004170 supports a difference in accelerations.

The third test compared the low-density foam with thin plastic shin guard

(1) to the medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard (4). The mean

acceleration at the point of impact with the low-density foam with thin plastic shin

guard (1) and with the medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard (4) is

not equal. The p-value of 1.1027x10-6 supports a difference in accelerations.

Finally, the sixth test compared the medium-density foam with thin plastic

shin guard (3) to the medium-density foam with hard plastic shin guard (4). The

mean acceleration at the point of impact with the medium-density foam with thin

plastic shin guard (3) and with the medium-density foam with hard plastic shin

guard (4) is not equal. The p-value of 0.008310 supports a difference in

accelerations. The data did not provide support that the shin guards had a

significant difference among all of the angles, but there was a significant
 Heaney Morris 42

difference within the 30 trials. Four of the six combinations were significant,

therefore indicating that the shin guards protect smaller forces at a wider range of

designs.

Referring to the purpose of this experiment, shin guards have been

effective in reducing force directed at the shin from balls, legs, and cleat studs.

They reduce injury by acting as shock absorbers as they spread the load across

a larger area, modifying the shock absorption characteristics of the lower leg.

They also can deflect the energy back to the striking force. Some shin guards

reduce force better when introduced to a greater force. High density shin guards

are constructed to prevent injuries of a greater force and do not absorb as much

energy when applied to small forces. The small forces do not impact the shin

guard at a hard enough force and are deflected off without an effect of

absorption. At this smaller impact, the plastic outer shells help to deflect the

force. However, at larger impacts, the plastic shells serve as poor protection.

Indicating why the low-density with thin plastic shin guard reduced the most force

at the 30 release angle.

The spring constant, another factor in performance, is the compression of

foam and how much the shin guard foam can absorb or deflect. When an object

strikes a foam material, the material compresses until it loses all air space

(Shock and Acceleration Theory). The high-density foam material had a high

spring constant because it had very little air space in the foam and was also very

thick. The thickness and the high spring constant of the high-density foam was
 Heaney Morris 43

able to slow down the pendulum weight, resulting in more time and reducing the

force. Shin guards with low to medium-density foam worked better against lower

forces because they had a low spring constant. The pendulum weight could

strike the shin guards and fully absorb into the material, while for material with a

high spring constant, the object would deflect off and not fully compress. The

high-density foam reduced the most force against the 45 and 60 angles

because the pendulum weight was able to be absorbed thoroughly into the shin

guard. The low density foam with thin plastic shell performed the best against the

30 angle because of its low spring constant and ability to fully absorb the smaller

angle.

As prior research reveals, along with the results of the research

experiment, the level of protection of a shin guard varies between different

materials, sizes, and designs. Heavier guards with higher density foam, like the

high-density foam shin guard used, dissipate more force and reduce the strain

better than smaller lighter shin guards (Zimmerman). The structural (outer) shell

of the shin guard is a durable source of protection for the shin, therefore a harder

shell may appear to provide the most protection, but it does not necessarily

reduce the most force.

In this case, the high-density foam shin guard proved to reduce the most

force for the 45 and 60 angles; however, the 30 release angle has the lowest

acceleration with the low-density foam with thin plastic outer shell shin guard.

Plastic outer shells on shin guards help to redirect the kick when the force is
 Heaney Morris 44

small enough to handle. Therefore, a plastic outer shell helps reduce the force

more at a less powerful kick than the high-density of foam. As supported by the

results of this experiment, the high-density foam shin guard reduces more force

at larger angles while the plastic outer shell reduces more force at smaller angles

because they have the ability to redirect the force when it is smaller. This further

supports the low-density with thin plastic shin guard reducing the most force at

the 30 release angle.

Compliance, defined as the reciprocal of stiffness, is determined by the

properties of the padding material of the guard. The strong correlation between

thickness and impact absorption supports the importance of compliance. For

example, foam, a compliant material, decreases the contact times of impact,

therefore reducing the peak impact force. The Impulse Momentum Theorem,

applied to the contact times of impact, states that the change in momentum of an

object is equal to the impulse (Force * Time) applied to it, which is also equivalent

to Newtons Second Law, Force = mass * acceleration. Results from previous

research show that the impulse from a force is dissipated across the shin guard

reducing the total impact force on the tibia, which is solved for by acceleration.

The shin guard that has the greatest velocity change will have the greater

acceleration and will have the greatest change in momentum (impulse). This also

means that when mass is constant, a smaller acceleration produces a smaller

force. Therefore, the shin guard that had the smallest absolute value peak

acceleration of impact reduced the most force. In addition, if impulse stays

constant, less time results in a greater force of impact.

 Heaney Morris 45

Therefore, the results concluded that the shin guard with the high-density

foam opposed to the harder plastic shells reduced the most force. Shin guards

are all constructed differently to support different impacts. At the 30 release

angle, there was significance in each relationship that included a shin guard

made with a plastic outer shell. This further demonstrates plastics ability to

reduce lesser forces but not powerful impacts. The higher density foam was

developed to reduce force of greater impacts but did not provide as much

support for the smaller impacts. It stands clear that thicker foams reduce the

most force at larger impacts, as hypothesized, but outer shells hold more

significance in reducing force at smaller impacts. Soccer players should keep this

in mind along with the intensity of the level they play at.

While the experiment followed through smoothly, there were minor

complications. Due to a few outliers, the accelerometer may have inaccurately

recorded some trials. The same setup was used along with the same equipment

for each trial. To ensure the most accurate data as possible, the same researcher

pulled back the pendulum for every trial. The angles were measured once and

taped to ensure the accuracy of the data. However, because the pendulum

weight was pulled back by hand to an approximate area, the release angles were

not 100% accurate. In addition, each of the shin guards was hit in the same spot

every trial. This often increased denting in the shin guard which may have

negatively affected our data. If the dents repeatedly wore down the material, the

shin guard could have performed weaker than it would in a game because a

player would most likely not get kicked in the same spot for each collision.
 Heaney Morris 46

If this experiment was conducted again, a prosthetic foot would be an

ideal testing material. If the foot had the ability to move or react to the kick in a

realistic manner, the data would mimic real-life athletic experiences. The shin

guard could be altered to behave in a functional way while still supporting the

shin. This would alter the data collection to approach realistic improvements in

business and soccer. Also, improved accuracy in the angle release could narrow

the data down to more accurate results.

The research completed in this lab can be expanded to other shin guard

characteristics. Some of which include size, material, brand, and price. Large

shin guards and their ability to reduce force can be compared to smaller shin

guards and their ability to reduce force. Whether a shin guard is made of rubber

or foam can also have a great impact on its durability and strength. Thus, the

protection differs among varying shin guards. In addition, the brand and price of

the shin guards could also be compared to determine whether or not it has an

effect on quality and protection. Research could be done to compare Nike,

Adidas, and Predator shin guards. Testing and comparing these elements allow

the best overall shin guard to become clear. Four commercial shin guards with

varied padding and hard coverings will be placed over model legs using boards

1-inch-thick by 2.5 inches wide, with stuffing and stocking inside. Objects will be

dropped from different heights to calculate the force and kinetic energy (Joules)

of the falling weights to document fracture incidence.

 Heaney Morris 47

All in all, the results of this experiment have potential to benefit

businesses, soccer players, and other athletes. Using these results, businesses

and manufacturers may increase production of shin guards with the most

protective design while decreasing production of unsafe shin guards. Soccer

players can easily find two necessary elements, comfort and support, in their

equipment. Designers of the future should compromise where protection is

maximized and preferences are addressed. This experiment clearly covers a

crucial aspect of injuries in sports. Saving one tibia can save a career.

Acknowledgements

Thanks and appreciation is given to the people that guided and

encouraged us through the course of this experiment. Specifically, thanks to Mrs.

Cybulski for her direction. Her supportive, positive reinforcements pushed this

experiment to reach its full potential. Thanks to Mr. McMillan for the pendulum

weight and other materials borrowed. Also, thanks supporting this experiment

and perfecting the procedure.

 Heaney Morris 48

Appendix A: Construction and Setup

 Heaney Morris 49

Figure 10. Wooden Structure

Figure 10 above displays the wooden structure that was designed to

support the shin guard. The cylinder slid over the vertical wooden piece as it

helped simulate a players shin. To construct this structure, a wooden rectangle

was used as the base. One smaller rectangular wooden block was screwed and

glued to the base near the edge. Another smaller rectangular wooden block was

glued and then screwed using pilot holes through the first block to the base. In

addition to these wooden pieces, a vertical piece of wood was attached and

glued to the base as well as the blocks. Two additional rectangular wooden

blocks were attached behind the vertical wood to support both sides. A smaller

piece of wood was cut and glued to connect bottom half of the vertical wood to

the base on a slant. This was then stapled with a staple gun to provide extra

support to the vertical piece of wood that served to hold the simulated shin with a

shin guard attached.

 Heaney Morris 50

Figure 11. Setup of Pendulum

Figure 11 displays the setup of the pendulum. The horizontal metal bar

was clamped to the vertical metal bars at a height of 29.5 inches. The zip ties

were attached at angles 30, 45, and 60 and taped into place to secure the

angles for accurate measurement.

Initial Procedures:

1. Clamp the wooden structure to the edge of the lab table (see figure 1).
2. Insert two metal bars in the open slots perpendicular to the lab table. This should

be approximately seven inches away from the wooden platform.

3. Clamp the final metal bar horizontally to the vertical bars 29.5 inches above the

table (see figure 11).

4. Near the center of the horizontal bar, measure 30, 45, and 60 angles. Attach

zip-ties to the bar. Turn the zip-ties in line with the angle and secure them tightly

with tape (see figure 11).

 Heaney Morris 51

Figure 12. Shin Guard Setup

The wooden tube simulates a soccer players shin. The shin guard is

secured to the wooden tube with masking tape. The hole in the wooden tube has

a diameter that fits tight around the wooden structure, prepared for impact.
 Heaney Morris 52

Appendix B: ANOVA Sample Calculations

Sample Calculation for ANOVA Test:

variation among sample means between each population
F=
variationamong individualsall samples of each population
MSG mean square group
F= =
MSE mean square error
x =number of observationseach samplethe meanof each samplelike weighted means
n=each sample
x 1=each sample mean
N=total observations all samples
n1 x 1 +n2 x 2 +n3 x x 3 +n 4 x 4
x =
N
30 (11.1084 )+30(18.7861)+30(16.2738)+30(22.3880)
x =
120
x =17.1391
x
x
x
x
( 4x )2
( 3 x )2+ n4
I 1
2
( 2x ) +n3
( 1x )2 +n2
n1
MSG=
MSG=

2 2 2
4(11.108417.1391) + 4(18.786117.1391) + 4(16.273817.1391) + 4 (22.388 017.
41
MSG=89.84219572
2 2 2 2
( n11 ) s 1 + ( n21 ) s2 + ( n3 1 ) s 3 + ( n4 1 ) s 4
MSE=
NI
( 3 )( 5.4374 )2 + ( 3 )( 9.0932 )2 + ( 3 ) ( 7.6577 )2+ ( 3 ) ( 9.5408 )2
MSE=
1204
MSE=6.7737630757759
 Heaney Morris 53

89.84219572
F= 13.2633
6.7737630757759
I 1
Degrees of Freedom=
N I
41 3
Degrees of Freedom= =
1204 116
Book pvalue= 0.001

Figure 13. ANOVA Test

Figure 13 above shows the sample calculation of the ANOVA statistical

test.

Appendix C: Two-Sample t Test Sample Calculations

Sample Calculation for a Two-Sample t Test:

x =mean of data per shin guard

s 1=standard deviation

n1= population(number of trials)

degrees of freedom=(n11)

( x1 x2 ) ( 1 2)
t=

2 2
s1 s2
+
n 1 n2

18.7862
11.1084 ()(0)


t=

t=3.94

pvalue<0.0005

Figure 14. Two Sample t Test

Figure 14 above shows the sample calculation of the two sample t test.
 Heaney Morris 54

Appendix D: Sample Randomization

The trials were randomized using a TI-nspire calculator to ensure that

patterns do not exist and the data is accurate.

Figure 15. Calculator Randomization

Figure 15 shows how to randomize the trials. Begin by opening up a

calculator application. Once there, click menu, probability, random, and finally,

integer. Next, assign numbers to the shin guards and randomize them by placing

1, last shin guard number within the parenthesis. Last, assign numbers to the
 Heaney Morris 55

angles and randomize them by placing 1, last angle number within the

parenthesis. In this case, 1, 2, and 3 indicated 30, 45, and 60.

Figure 16. Example Randomization

Figure 16 is an example of how to randomize the trials of the shin guards

that were labeled 1 through 4.

Works Cited

Arbuckle, Dani. "Soccer Rules for Shin Guards." Healthy Living. Web. 12 May

2016. <http://healthyliving.azcentral.com/soccer-rules-shin-guards-

4084.html>.

Bir, CA, SJ Cassatta, and DH Janda. "Result Filters." National Center for

Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1995.

Web. 7 Mar. 2016. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7882120>.

Francisco, Anthony C., Roger W. Nightingale, Farshid Guilak, Richard R.

Glisson, and William E. Garrett. "Comparison of Soccer Shin

Guards in Preventing Tibia Fracture." ResearchGate. 2 Nov. 2000.

Web. 21 Apr. 2016. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12565386_

Comparisonof_soccer_shin_guards_in_preventing_tibia_fracture>.
 Heaney Morris 56

Goodrich, Ryan. "Accelerometers: What They Are & How They Work."

LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 01 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Apr.

2016. <http://www.livescience.com/40102- accelerometers.html>.

"History of Soccer Boots." : A Brief History of Shin Guards. 19 June 2014. Web.

12 May 2016. <http://fitba2014.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-brief-

history-of- shin-guards.html>.

"Newton's Second Law." The Physics Classroom. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-

3/Newton-s- Second-Law>.

Radigan, Mitchell. "Tibial Shaft Fractures." - Musculoskeletal Medicine for

Medical Students - OrthopaedicsOne. N.p., 21 July 2012. Web. 12

May 2016. <http://www.orthopaedicsone.com/display/MSKMed/Tibial

+shaft+fractures>.

"Shock and Acceleration Theory." N.p., 20 Apr. 2007. Web.

<http://itll.colorado.edu/modular_experiments_dir/itll_modules/Shock%20a

nd%20Acceleration/Shock%20and%20Acceleration

%20Theory.doc>.

Tatar, Yasar, Nusret Ramazanoglu, Asiye Filiz Camliguney, Evrim Karadag

Saygi, and Hasan Birol Cotuk. The Effectiveness of Shin Guards Used by

Football Players. Digital image. Journal of Sports Science and

Medicine. 20 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC3918547/>.
 Heaney Morris 57

--- "The Effectiveness of Shin Guards Used by Football Players." Journal of

Sports Science and Medicine, 13.1 (2014): 120-127. Web. 4 Mar.

2016. <http://jssm.org/vol13/n1/17/v13n1-17text.php>.

Zimmerman, Melissa. "Dwell Time of Shin Guards over One Season in College,

High School, and Youth Female Soccer Players." 23 Mar. 2011.

Web. 18 May 2016.

<https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:

537ZQnzjFuUJ:https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/

20370/Thesis_Melissa_Zimmerman.docx?

sequence=1&isAllowed=y>.